Is there one Criminal Code for politicians,
and another for the rest of us?
The situation could change at any moment, or drag on for months. But even if it does change, the message has already been sent.
A month has gone by since Svend Robinson, the noted lower-mainland Member of Parliament, stole a very valuable ring from a Vancouver-area auction. He was soon caught. He then confessed.
Why has he not been charged?
If it had been you or me, Richmond detachment Mounties would have appeared at our door on April 11 with a search warrant and a pair of handcuffs. The fact that they didn't in this case, and that weeks have gone by without a decision on prosecution, should concern us.
The Criminal Code says that every one (and I quote) EVERY one who commits theft where the value exceeds $5,000 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
It doesn't say "everyone except Members of Parliament."
The facts of the April 9 crime were known to police almost immediately, and there wasn't much to investigate. The MP was videotaped stealing the ring on Friday. The auction service sent that tape to the RCMP on Sunday. On Tuesday the suspect privately confessed his guilt to the police, surrendered the ring and apologized to the auction company. And on Thursday he disclosed at a national press conference what he had done.
We are left to wonder what happened in the 48 hours between the RCMP receiving the tape and Robinson returning the ring, and why the Mounties didn't report the crime themselves to the media and the public.
Since when have they started entrusting their media announcements to the accused, allowing them four days to compose themselves, consult lawyers, political friends and spin doctors, and set up their own press conferences?
An even better question is why the B.C. Attorney General's Ministry handed the case to a Special Prosecutor from outside the department, Len Doust.
They say that the decision whether or not to prosecute must not be tainted by the appearance of political considerations. Robinson is federal NDP, after all, and the B.C. attorney general, Geoff Plant, is a provincial Liberal.
Which is ridiculous, when you think about it, and has tainted the process with a far worse political stench than if they had just charged him immediately. It tells the whole world there's one criminal system for politicians and another for Joe Citizen.
Not a good message to be sending out these days, what with the federal sponsorship scandal and all.
Assigning the decision to a Special Prosecutor makes sense only in cases like that of former B.C. premier Glen Clark. Suspected of a crime, Clark held career-killing power over the individuals deciding whether or not to prosecute him. In cases like this the call must be made by an independent agent, not an employee of the government.
But Robinson holds no power over B.C.'s crown counsel office. So what if he's from a different party? He has said he knowingly committed an act that is a serious crime. What's to consider?
All the factors he mentioned in his statement about being under stress, and his sympathizers' kindly notion that he has "already suffered enough," have nothing to do with it at this stage. They are relevant only after a fair and open trial, if he is found guilty and when a judge passes sentence.
It's worth recalling that in November, 1989, MP Lorne Nystrom was caught allegedly shoplifting an item worth $8 from an Ottawa drug store.
He was immediately charged with theft. Less than two months later a judge agreed with his claim that he may have been guilty only of absent-mindedness when he pocketed two contact lens cleaners and returning the opened box to the store shelf.
Has something changed since 1989 that now puts MPs in a special class of their own? This case is open and shut. Why drag it out with pointless posturing?
CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION
ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE
- Link Byfield
Link Byfield is chairman of the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy
and another for the rest of us?
The situation could change at any moment, or drag on for months. But even if it does change, the message has already been sent.
A month has gone by since Svend Robinson, the noted lower-mainland Member of Parliament, stole a very valuable ring from a Vancouver-area auction. He was soon caught. He then confessed.
Why has he not been charged?
If it had been you or me, Richmond detachment Mounties would have appeared at our door on April 11 with a search warrant and a pair of handcuffs. The fact that they didn't in this case, and that weeks have gone by without a decision on prosecution, should concern us.
The Criminal Code says that every one (and I quote) EVERY one who commits theft where the value exceeds $5,000 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
It doesn't say "everyone except Members of Parliament."
The facts of the April 9 crime were known to police almost immediately, and there wasn't much to investigate. The MP was videotaped stealing the ring on Friday. The auction service sent that tape to the RCMP on Sunday. On Tuesday the suspect privately confessed his guilt to the police, surrendered the ring and apologized to the auction company. And on Thursday he disclosed at a national press conference what he had done.
We are left to wonder what happened in the 48 hours between the RCMP receiving the tape and Robinson returning the ring, and why the Mounties didn't report the crime themselves to the media and the public.
Since when have they started entrusting their media announcements to the accused, allowing them four days to compose themselves, consult lawyers, political friends and spin doctors, and set up their own press conferences?
An even better question is why the B.C. Attorney General's Ministry handed the case to a Special Prosecutor from outside the department, Len Doust.
They say that the decision whether or not to prosecute must not be tainted by the appearance of political considerations. Robinson is federal NDP, after all, and the B.C. attorney general, Geoff Plant, is a provincial Liberal.
Which is ridiculous, when you think about it, and has tainted the process with a far worse political stench than if they had just charged him immediately. It tells the whole world there's one criminal system for politicians and another for Joe Citizen.
Not a good message to be sending out these days, what with the federal sponsorship scandal and all.
Assigning the decision to a Special Prosecutor makes sense only in cases like that of former B.C. premier Glen Clark. Suspected of a crime, Clark held career-killing power over the individuals deciding whether or not to prosecute him. In cases like this the call must be made by an independent agent, not an employee of the government.
But Robinson holds no power over B.C.'s crown counsel office. So what if he's from a different party? He has said he knowingly committed an act that is a serious crime. What's to consider?
All the factors he mentioned in his statement about being under stress, and his sympathizers' kindly notion that he has "already suffered enough," have nothing to do with it at this stage. They are relevant only after a fair and open trial, if he is found guilty and when a judge passes sentence.
It's worth recalling that in November, 1989, MP Lorne Nystrom was caught allegedly shoplifting an item worth $8 from an Ottawa drug store.
He was immediately charged with theft. Less than two months later a judge agreed with his claim that he may have been guilty only of absent-mindedness when he pocketed two contact lens cleaners and returning the opened box to the store shelf.
Has something changed since 1989 that now puts MPs in a special class of their own? This case is open and shut. Why drag it out with pointless posturing?
CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION
ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE
- Link Byfield
Link Byfield is chairman of the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy
Comment